Environment, Finance, Health, Politics, Reality Modification

Tag Archives: Matt Taibbi

Clip from the Thursday, April 17th 2014 edition of The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio monday – friday 4-6pm Eastern.

Living in America has taught Matt Taibbi that we as a society have “a profound hatred of the weak and the poor.”

That’s one claim the former Rolling Stone writer makes in his new book, “The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap.” Taibbi defended this statement in a HuffPost Live interview on Tuesday. Read More @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04…

Who are the PlayMakers? They are perceived as the “1 percent.” In actuality it’s more like the .”0.000000001 percent” who have devised and control this game.

The game itself is an energy game. It’s configured by the PlayMakers as a “take/exploit” exchange, with themselves as Takers and the 99.99999999 as exploitable energy resources embedded in the game (at birth) without informed consent.

In case you’re wondering what these agendas might be let’s take a tour down Psychopathy Lane (which deadends conveniently into Damned If You Do Straits).

Too Big To Fail

This has to represent a pinnacle of greed, hubris, fraud and thievery the likes of which can only exist in a drugged and mind-controlled populace. Oh, that’s right. It IS a drugged and mind-controlled populace, one that’s about to be fleeced of its pensions.

Yes. According to Matt Taibbi pension funds are now to be sacrificed on the altar of Big Greed.

“This is the third act in an improbable triple-[screwing] of ordinary people that Wall Street is seeking to pull off as a shocker epilogue to the crisis era. Five years ago this fall, an epidemic of fraud and thievery in the financial-services industry triggered the collapse of our economy. The resultant loss of tax revenue plunged states everywhere into spiraling fiscal crises, and local governments suffered huge losses in their retirement portfolios – remember, these public pension funds were some of the most frequently targeted suckers upon whom Wall Street dumped its fraud-riddled mortgage-backed securities in the pre-crash years.” http://www.shiftfrequency.com/matt-taibbi-looting-public-pensions-a-new-think-tank-study/

OPINION ~ I didn’t watch the debate – I just couldn’t. I read it in transcript form afterwards. I know it is widely believed that Mitt Romney won, but I don’t agree. I think both candidates lost. I think they both sucked. Romney told a series of outright lies – the bit about the pre-existing conditions was incredible – while Barack Obama seemed unaccountably disinterested in the intellectual challenge of the exercise, repeatedly leaving the gross absurdities hurled his way by Romney unchallenged.

Romney’s performance was better than Obama’s, but only if you throw out criteria like “wasn’t 100% full of shit from the opening bell” and “made an actual attempt to explain who he is and what his plans are.” Unfortunately, that is good enough for our news media, which drools over the gamesmanship aspects of these debates, because it loves candidates who sink their teeth into the horse-race nonsense that they think validates their professional lives.

For instance: in my local paper, the Star-Ledger in New Jersey, I read an analysis entitled, “Romney’s debate performance was presidential game changer, analysts say.”

The unnamed authors of this analysis delivered a blizzard of sports metaphors about Romney’s performance. “It’s a new race for the White House,” they said, after Romney “changed the game with an aggressive, confident performance” – needed, because “Obama’s forces had hinted earlier that all they needed from the debate was one good punch to knock Romney out,” after the challenger “spent the summer and early fall stumbling.”

On the internet, they complemented this keen analysis with a cartoon picture of the two candidates as superheroes punching each other, complete with “Pow!” and “Bam!” Batman-style effects.

Why was Romney so effective, according to the Star-Ledger? Because “the Romney viewers saw during the nationally televised debate from Denver was the one his friends have long known: a conversational, smart, decent-on-his-feet guy, eager to defend his plans to cut taxes and change government health insurance for future generations.”

Obama, meanwhile, came off as “wonky and lacking punch,” because he was “so intent on answering questions.”

The great mystery story in American politics these days is why, over the course of two presidential administrations (one from each party), there’s been no serious federal criminal investigation of Wall Street during a period of what appears to be epic corruption. People on the outside have speculated and come up with dozens of possible reasons, some plausible, some tending toward the conspiratorial – but there have been very few who’ve come at the issue from the inside.

We get one of those rare inside accounts in The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins, a new book by Jeff Connaughton, the former aide to Senators Ted Kaufman and Joe Biden. Jeff is well known to reporters like me; during a period when most government officials double-talked or downplayed the Wall Street corruption problem, Jeff was one of the few voices on the Hill who always talked about the subject with appropriate alarm. He shared this quality with his boss Kaufman, the Delaware Senator who took over Biden’s seat and instantly became an irritating (to Wall Street) political force by announcing he wasn’t going to run for re-election. “I later learned from reporters that Wall Street was frustrated that they couldn’t find a way to harness Ted or pull in his reins,” Jeff writes. “There was no obvious way to pressure Ted because he wasn’t running for re-election.”

Kaufman for some time was a go-to guy in the Senate for reform activists and reporters who wanted to find out what was really going on with corruption issues. He was a leader in a number of areas, attempting to push through (often simple) fixes to issues like high-frequency trading (his advocacy here looked prescient after the “flash crash” of 2010), naked short-selling, and, perhaps most importantly, the Too-Big-To-Fail issue. What’s fascinating about Connaughton’s book is that we now get to hear a behind-the-scenes account of who exactly was knocking down simple reform ideas, how they were knocked down, and in some cases we even find out why good ideas were rejected, although some element of mystery certainly remains here.

OPINION ~ I’m on vacation, very far from home, so apologies for the short post. I’ll be back online next week, and we have a fun story coming out in Rolling Stone the week after that.

In the meantime, I wanted first of all to thank everyone who participated in the Thunderclap Twitter experiment. I’m away, and haven’t heard the full report yet, but I understand it was a rousing success. I’ll find out more when I come home, but until then, thank you all again for taking the time to sign up.

One story I did want to pass on while I was gone is a very interesting Wall Street Journal piece entitled, “Meet the JOBS Act’s Jobs-Free Companies.” A few months ago, I wrote a few articles about the JOBS Act, which a number of friends of mine from congress and from the regulatory community insisted would pave the way for a return to the IPO fraud boom of the late nineties, if not for a return to the penny-stock fraud age.

Well, eight weeks after the passage of the law, we’re finding some unexpected results. Among the more controversial provisions of the JOBS Act, remember, was a sort of blanket regulatory exemption for so-called “Emerging Growth Companies,” which were loosely defined as public companies with less than $1 billion in annual revenues. Among other things, the new law allows such companies to avoid independent accounting requirements for the first five years of their existence.

According to the WSJ, what’s happening now is that the JOBS Act is being used to facilitate what are known as “reverse mergers.” Because it’s traditionally been difficult for new companies to meet the regulatory requirements for going public, what’s often happened is that young companies look for dormant or dead corporations that are already registered. They then merge with those “empty shell” companies, use their corporate structures, and thusly avoid the IPO process altogether. This process is called a “reverse merger.”